Sandi Bachom

Sandi Bachom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG: No independent, reliable sources offer significant coverage. —swpbT 13:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:38, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:38, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:00, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this is adequate to meet GNG. Montanabw(talk) 21:08, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

—swpbT 12:55, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. —swpbT 13:04, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —swpbT 13:04, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —swpbT 13:05, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You certainly should know extremely this all well by now; or be embarrassed to admit that you don't. There are exactly two possibilities: you still don't understand what independence means (which, at this point, can only be called incompetence), or you don't care (distruption). Either will end your AfD career just as effectively. —swpbT 20:17, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Once again with the threats. Stop. It would be wise for you to focus on content. There are additional possibilities: 3) You disagree with my analysis. You certainly have the right to do so. It is reasonable for you to suggest that some source material may go toward verifiability more than notability, I equally have the right to state my case. Just because we disagree does not mean we have to be disagreeable. That said, your point on two of the three sources you just listed is a reasonable one, I disagree with you on the traversecity source. Montanabw(talk) 20:27, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I will not stop calling you out when you come to my AfDs with falsehoods, ever, and I will keep telling you exactly where it will lead. This isn't a "disagreement", this is one editor continually presenting false facts. —swpbT 20:31, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
swpb, you are engaging in personal attacks. I am not presenting "false facts," I am presenting what sources I could fund, and offering my interpretation of the guidelines. You need to stop making threats. The community will decide this case and you need to look at phrases like "my AfDs" You don't WP:OWN these nominations, and I weigh in ay many other AfDs besides yours, particularly where they involve biographies of women, as here. (I even !vote delete about 1/3 of the time, last I checked.) Montanabw(talk) 17:51, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Montanabw the facts really aren't on your side here. These were trivially obviously terrible sources, and you are a sufficiently experienced editor that anyone working with you should reasonably expect better - David Gerard (talk) 21:36, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have presented what I could find, made the case for the stronger sources, and I will respect the consensus of the community, David Gerard. This is not the strongest set of sources I have seen, but I think that there's enough to at least place it in a gray area and apply the principle that there is a presumption of notability. But if consensus goes the other way, this one is not a hill I'm going to die on. That said, other editors (not you) need to lay off the attribution of my motives and stop making threats. Montanabw(talk) 17:51, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:42, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As per the guidelines identified to editors when they post at this discussion, the first paragraph of "How to contribute" states,

AfDs are a place for rational discussion of whether an article is able to meet Wikipedia's article guidelines and policies. Reasonable editors will often disagree, but valid arguments will be given more weight than unsupported statements. When an editor offers arguments or evidence that do not explain how the article meets/violates policy, they may only need a reminder to engage in constructive, on-topic discussion. But a pattern of groundless opinion, proof by assertion, and ignoring content guidelines may become disruptive. If a pattern of disruptive behavior persists after efforts are made to correct the situation through dialogue, please consider a dispute resolution process outside the current AfD.

Unscintillating (talk) 14:02, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Adam9007: This is a proof by assertion.  Please provide examples of what you call "trivial mentions".  Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 15:22, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a trivial mention:


These two are the only ones that might be halfway decent, but only halfway:

Adam9007 (talk) 15:32, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Categories